11111111111111111111

Bias is any inconsistencies in using a sample to make inferences about the entire
population. This can be our sample not being representative of the population, the
answers not being valid, or people in your sample not cooperating with your work. Our
goal is to try and minimize bias when we collect our sample.
When collecting data, it is important to avoid bias.
Definition:
Bias is an unintended influence on a data-gathering method.
There are several types of bias that may occur if you are not careful when gathering
your data.
Here are a few types of bias that may happen if you aren't careful.
Sampling Bias
When, for whatever reason, the chosen sample does not accurately represent the
population. Sometimes, even when we use random sampling, we may encounter a
sampling bias. To
reduce this risk, we should use an appropriate sampling technique with a large enough
sample.
Non-Response Bias
When some surveys are not returned, thus influencing the results of the survey.
To avoid this, find a creative way to make sure everyone returns their survey.
Response Bias
When the sampling method itself influences the results. For example, if a survey had
leading questions or the person conducting the survey tried to influence the survey
takers.
Household Bias
When one type of respondent is overrepresented because groupings of different sizes
are polled equally. For example, if we want to know the favourite television show of all
people at St.
Benedict and we surveyed 20 teachers and 20 students, we would be over-representing
the teachers.
Since there are many more students than teachers, we should survey many more
students. (We should
survey a certain PERCENTAGE of each group being surveyed to ensure that each
group is represented
equally.)

Biased data
The measured data collected in an investigation should be both accurate and precise, as explained below.

To be accurate, the measured value should be close to the actual or true value.

To be precise, the measured values should be close to each other when repeated.

To ensure that a sample is random, it should be carefully planned in the context of the question being asked.
You can download the Biased Data: Student Worksheet which further explores accuracy and precision, as well
as random sampling.

Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research

Christopher J. Pannucci, MD and Edwin G. Wilkins, MD MS
Author information Copyright and License information

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Plast Reconstr Surg

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Definition of bias

Bias is any trend or deviation from the truth in data collection, data analysis, interpretation and publication which can
cause false conclusions. Bias can occur either intentionally or unintentionally (1). Intention to introduce bias into
someones research is immoral. Nevertheless, considering the possible consequences of a biased research, it is
almost equally irresponsible to conduct and publish a biased research unintentionally.
It is worth pointing out that every study has its confounding variables and limitations. Confounding effect cannot be
completely avoided. Every scientist should therefore be aware of all potential sources of bias and undertake all
possible actions to reduce and minimize the deviation from the truth. If deviation is still present, authors should
confess it in their articles by declaring the known limitations of their work.
It is also the responsibility of editors and reviewers to detect any potential bias. If such bias exists, it is up to the editor
to decide whether the bias has an important effect on the study conclusions. If that is the case, such articles need to
be rejected for publication, because its conclusions are not valid.
Bias in data collection
Population consists of all individuals with a characteristic of interest. Since, studying a population is quite often
impossible due to the limited time and money; we usually study a phenomenon of interest in a representative sample.
By doing this, we hope that what we have learned from a sample can be generalized to the entire population (2). To
be able to do so, a sample needs to be representative of the population. If this is not the case, conclusions will not be
generalizable, i.e. the study will not have the external validity.
So, sampling is a crucial step for every research. While collecting data for research, there are numerous ways by
which researchers can introduce bias in the study. If, for example, during patient recruitment, some patients are less
or more likely to enter the study than others, such sample would not be representative of the population in which this
research is done. In that case, these subjects who are less likely to enter the study will be under-represented and
those who are more likely to enter the study will be over-represented relative to others in the general population, to
which conclusions of the study are to be applied to. This is what we call a selection bias. To ensure that a sample is
representative of a population, sampling should be random, i.e. every subject needs to have equal probability to be
included in the study. It should be noted that sampling bias can also occur if sample is too small to represent the target
population (3).
For example, if the aim of the study is to assess the average hsCRP (high sensitive C-reactive protein) concentration
in healthy population in Croatia, the way to go would be to recruit healthy individuals from a general population during
their regular annual health check up. On the other hand, a biased study would be one which recruits only volunteer
blood donors because healthy blood donors are usually individuals who feel themselves healthy and who are not
suffering from any condition or illness which might cause changes in hsCRP concentration. By recruiting only healthy
blood donors we might conclude that hsCRP is much lower that it really is. This is a kind of sampling bias, which we
call a volunteer bias.

Another example for volunteer bias occurs by inviting colleagues from a laboratory or clinical department to
participate in the study on some new marker for anemia. It is very likely that such study would preferentially include
those participants who might suspect to be anemic and are curious to learn it from this new test. This way, anemic
individuals might be over-represented. A research would then be biased and it would not allow generalization of
conclusions to the rest of the population.
Generally speaking, whenever cross-sectional or case control studies are done exclusively in hospital settings, there
is a good chance that such study will be biased. This is called admission bias. Bias
exists because the population studied does not reflect the general population.
Another example of sampling bias is the so called survivor bias which usually occurs in cross-sectional studies. If a
study is aimed to assess the association of altered KLK6 (human Kallikrein-6) expression with a 10 year incidence of
Alzheimers disease, subjects who died before the study end point might be missed from the study.
Misclassification bias is a kind of sampling bias which occurs when a disease of interest is poorly defined, when there
is no gold standard for diagnosis of the disease or when a disease might not be easy detectable. This way some
subjects are falsely classified as cases or controls whereas they should have been in another group. Let us say that a
researcher wants to study the accuracy of a new test for an early detection of the prostate cancer in asymptomatic
men. Due to absence of a reliable test for the early prostate cancer detection, there is a chance that some early
prostate cancer cases would go misclassified as disease-free causing the under- or over-estimation of the accuracy
of this new marker.
As a general rule, a research question needs to be considered with much attention and all efforts should be made to
ensure that a sample is as closely matched to the population, as possible.

I. Definition and scope of bias

Bias is defined as any tendency which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question 6. In
research, bias occurs when systematic error [is] introduced into sampling or testing by selecting
or encouraging one outcome or answer over others 7. Bias can occur at any phase of research,
including study design or data collection, as well as in the process of data analysis and
publication (Figure 1). Bias is not a dichotomous variable. Interpretation of bias cannot be
limited to a simple inquisition: is bias present or not? Instead, reviewers of the literature must
consider the degree to which bias was prevented by proper study design and implementation. As
some degree of bias is nearly always present in a published study, readers must also consider
how bias might influence a study's conclusions 8. Table 1 provides a summary of different types
of bias, when they occur, and how they might be avoided.

1.

The observer-expectancy effect (also called the experimenter-expectancy effect,

expectancy bias, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a form of reactivity in which
a researcher's cognitive biascauses them to unconsciously influence the participants of
an experiment.

333333333333333333

Levels of measurement
Most texts on marketing research explain the four levels of measurement: nominal, ordinal,
interval and ratio and so the treatment given to them here will be brief. However, it is an
important topic since the type of scale used in taking measurements directly impinges on the
statistical techniques which can legitimately be used in the analysis.

Nominal scales
This, the crudest of measurement scales, classifies individuals, companies, products, brands or
other entities into categories where no order is implied. Indeed it is often referred to as a
categorical scale. It is a system of classification and does not place the entity along a
continuum. It involves a simply count of the frequency of the cases assigned to the various
categories, and if desired numbers can be nominally assigned to label each category as in the
example below:
Figure 3.1 An example of a nominal scale
Which of the following food items do you tend to buy at least once per month? (Please tick)
Okra

Palm Oil

Milled Rice

Peppers

Prawns

Pasteurised milk

The numbers have no arithmetic properties and act only as labels. The only measure of average
which can be used is the mode because this is simply a set of frequency counts. Hypothesis
tests can be carried out on data collected in the nominal form. The most likely would be the Chisquare test. However, it should be noted that the Chi-square is a test to determine whether two
or more variables are associated and the strength of that relationship. It can tell nothing about
the form of that relationship, where it exists, i.e. it is not capable of establishing cause and
effect.
Ordinal scales
Ordinal scales involve the ranking of individuals, attitudes or items along the continuum of the
characteristic being scaled. For example, if a researcher asked farmers to rank 5 brands of
pesticide in order of preference he/she might obtain responses like those in table 3.2 below.
Figure 3.2 An example of an ordinal scale used to determine farmers' preferences among
5 brands of pesticide.
Order of preference

Brand

Rambo

R.I.P.

Killalot

D.O.A.

Bugdeath

From such a table the researcher knows the order of preference but nothing about how much
more one brand is preferred to another, that is there is no information about the interval between
any two brands. All of the information a nominal scale would have given is available from an
ordinal scale. In addition, positional statistics such as the median, quartile and percentile can be
determined.
It is possible to test for order correlation with ranked data. The two main methods are
Spearman's Ranked Correlation Coefficient and Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance. Using
either procedure one can, for example, ascertain the degree to which two or more survey
respondents agree in their ranking of a set of items. Consider again the ranking of pesticides
example in figure 3.2. The researcher might wish to measure similarities and differences in the
rankings of pesticide brands according to whether the respondents' farm enterprises were
classified as "arable" or "mixed" (a combination of crops and livestock). The resultant coefficient
takes a value in the range 0 to 1. A zero would mean that there was no agreement between the
two groups, and 1 would indicate total agreement. It is more likely that an answer somewhere
between these two extremes would be found.
The only other permissible hypothesis testing procedures are the runs test and sign test. The
runs test (also known as the Wald-Wolfowitz). Test is used to determine whether a sequence of
binomial data - meaning it can take only one of two possible values e.g. African/non-African,
yes/no, male/female - is random or contains systematic 'runs' of one or other value. Sign tests
are employed when the objective is to determine whether there is a significant difference
between matched pairs of data. The sign test tells the analyst if the number of positive
differences in ranking is approximately equal to the number of negative rankings, in which case
the distribution of rankings is random, i.e. apparent differences are not significant. The test
takes into account only the direction of differences and ignores their magnitude and hence it is
compatible with ordinal data.
Interval scales
It is only with an interval scaled data that researchers can justify the use of the arithmetic mean
as the measure of average. The interval or cardinal scale has equal units of measurement, thus
making it possible to interpret not only the order of scale scores but also the distance between
them. However, it must be recognised that the zero point on an interval scale is arbitrary and is
not a true zero. This of course has implications for the type of data manipulation and analysis
we can carry out on data collected in this form. It is possible to add or subtract a constant to all
of the scale values without affecting the form of the scale but one cannot multiply or divide the
values. It can be said that two respondents with scale positions 1 and 2 are as far apart as two
respondents with scale positions 4 and 5, but not that a person with score 10 feels twice as

strongly as one with score 5. Temperature is interval scaled, being measured either in
Centigrade or Fahrenheit. We cannot speak of 50F being twice as hot as 25F since the
corresponding temperatures on the centigrade scale, 10C and -3.9C, are not in the ratio 2:1.
Interval scales may be either numeric or semantic. Study the examples below in figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 Examples of interval scales in numeric and semantic formats
Please indicate your views on Balkan Olives by scoring them on a scale of 5 down to 1 (i.e. 5 = Excellent;
= Poor) on each of the criteria listed
Balkan Olives are:

Circle the appropriate score on each line

Succulence

5 4 3 2 1

Fresh tasting

5 4 3 2 1

Free of skin blemish

5 4 3 2 1

Good value

5 4 3 2 1

Attractively packaged

5 4 3 2 1
(a)

Please indicate your views on Balkan Olives by ticking the appropriate responses below:
Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Succulent
Freshness
Freedom from skin blemish
Value for money
Attractiveness of packaging
(b)

Most of the common statistical methods of analysis require only interval scales in order that they
might be used. These are not recounted here because they are so common and can be found in
virtually all basic texts on statistics.
Ratio scales

The highest level of measurement is a ratio scale. This has the properties of an interval scale
together with a fixed origin or zero point. Examples of variables which are ratio scaled include
weights, lengths and times. Ratio scales permit the researcher to compare both differences in
scores and the relative magnitude of scores. For instance the difference between 5 and 10
minutes is the same as that between 10 and 15 minutes, and 10 minutes is twice as long as 5
minutes.
Given that sociological and management research seldom aspires beyond the interval level of
measurement, it is not proposed that particular attention be given to this level of analysis.
Suffice it to say that virtually all statistical operations can be performed on ratio scales.

Measurement scales
The various types of scales used in marketing research fall into two broad categories:
comparative and non comparative. In comparative scaling, the respondent is asked to compare
one brand or product against another. With noncomparative scaling respondents need only
evaluate a single product or brand. Their evaluation is independent of the other product and/or
brands which the marketing researcher is studying.
Noncomparative scaling is frequently referred to as monadic scaling and this is the more widely
used type of scale in commercial marketing research studies.

Comparative scales
Paired comparison2: It is sometimes the case that marketing researchers wish to find out which
are the most important factors in determining the demand for a product. Conversely they may
wish to know which are the most important factors acting to prevent the widespread adoption of
a product. Take, for example, the very poor farmer response to the first design of an animaldrawn mould board plough. A combination of exploratory research and shrewd observation
suggested that the following factors played a role in the shaping of the attitudes of those farmers
who feel negatively towards the design:
Does not ridge
Does not work for inter-cropping
Far too expensive
New technology too risky
Too difficult to carry.
Suppose the organisation responsible wants to know which factors is foremost in the farmer's
mind. It may well be the case that if those factors that are most important to the farmer than the
others, being of a relatively minor nature, will cease to prevent widespread adoption. The
alternatives are to abandon the product's re-development or to completely re-design it which is
not only expensive and time-consuming, but may well be subject to a new set of objections.

The process of rank ordering the objections from most to least important is best approached
through the questioning technique known as 'paired comparison'. Each of the objections is
paired by the researcher so that with 5 factors, as in this example, there are 10 pairs-

In 'paired comparisons' every factor has to be paired with every other factor in turn. However,
only one pair is ever put to the farmer at any one time.
The question might be put as follows:
Which of the following was the more important in making you decide not to buy the plough?
The plough was too expensive
It proved too difficult to transport

In most cases the question, and the alternatives, would be put to the farmer verbally. He/she
then indicates which of the two was the more important and the researcher ticks the box on his
questionnaire. The question is repeated with a second set of factors and the appropriate box
ticked again. This process continues until all possible combinations are exhausted, in this case
10 pairs. It is good practice to mix the pairs of factors so that there is no systematic bias. The
researcher should try to ensure that any particular factor is sometimes the first of the pair to be
mentioned and sometimes the second. The researcher would never, for example, take the first
factor (on this occasion 'Does not ridge') and systematically compare it to each of the others in
succession. That is likely to cause systematic bias.
Below labels have been given to the factors so that the worked example will be easier to
understand. The letters A - E have been allocated as follows:
A=

Does not ridge

B=

Far too expensive

C=

New technology too risky

D=

Does not work for inter-cropping

E=

Too difficult to carry.

The data is then arranged into a matrix. Assume that 200 farmers have been interviewed and
their responses are arranged in the grid below. Further assume that the matrix is so arranged
that we read from top to side. This means, for example, that 164 out of 200 farmers said the fact
that the plough was too expensive was a greater deterrent than the fact that it was not capable

of ridging. Similarly, 174 farmers said that the plough's inability to inter-crop was more important
than the inability to ridge when deciding not to buy the plough.
Figure 3.4 A preference matrix
A

100

164

120

174

180

36

100

160

176

166

80

40

100

168

124

26

24

32

100

102

20

34

76

98

100

If the grid is carefully read, it can be seen that the rank order of the factors is Most important

E Too difficult to carry

D Does not inter crop
C New technology/high risk
B Too expensive

Least important

A Does not ridge.

It can be seen that it is more important for designers to concentrate on improving transportability
and, if possible, to give it an inter-cropping capability rather than focusing on its ridging
capabilities (remember that the example is entirely hypothetical).
One major advantage to this type of questioning is that whilst it is possible to obtain a measure
of the order of importance of five or more factors from the respondent, he is never asked to think
about more than two factors at any one time. This is especially useful when dealing with illiterate
farmers. Having said that, the researcher has to be careful not to present too many pairs of
factors to the farmer during the interview. If he does, he will find that the farmer will quickly get
tired and/or bored. It is as well to remember the formula of n(n - 1)/2. For ten factors, brands or
product attributes this would give 45 pairs. Clearly the farmer should not be asked to subject
himself to having the same question put to him 45 times. For practical purposes, six factors is
possibly the limit, giving 15 pairs.
It should be clear from the procedures described in these notes that the paired comparison
scale gives ordinal data.

Dollar Metric Comparisons3: This type of scale is an extension of the paired comparison
method in that it requires respondents to indicate both their preference and how much they are
willing to pay for their preference. This scaling technique gives the marketing researcher an
interval - scaled measurement. An example is given in figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5 An example of a dollar metric scale
Which of the following types of fish do
you prefer?

How much more, in cents, would you be prepared to pay for

your preferred fish?

Fresh

Fresh (gutted)

$0.70

Fresh (gutted)

Smoked

0.50

Frozen

Smoked

0.60

Frozen

Fresh

0.70

Smoked

Fresh

0.20

Frozen(gutted)

Frozen

From the data above the preferences shown below can be computed as follows:
Fresh fish:

0.70

+ 0.70

+ 0.20

=1.60

Smoked fish:

0.60

+ (-0.20)

+ (-0.50)

=(-1.10)

Fresh fish(gutted):

(-0.70)

+ 0.30

+ 0.50

=0.10

Frozen fish:

(-0.60)

+ (-0.70)

+ (-0.30)

=(-1.60)

The Unity-sum-gain technique: A common problem with launching new products is one of
reaching a decision as to what options, and how many options one offers. Whilst a company
may be anxious to meet the needs of as many market segments as possible, it has to ensure
that the segment is large enough to enable him to make a profit. It is always easier to add
products to the product line but much more difficult to decide which models should be deleted.
One technique for evaluating the options which are likely to prove successful is the unity-sumgain approach.
The procedure is to begin with a list of features which might possibly be offered as 'options' on
the product, and alongside each you list its retail cost. A third column is constructed and this
forms an index of the relative prices of each of the items. The table below will help clarify the
procedure. For the purposes of this example the basic reaper is priced at $20,000 and some
possible 'extras' are listed along with their prices.

The total value of these hypothetical 'extras' is $7,460 but the researcher tells the farmer he has
an equally hypothetical $3,950 or similar sum. The important thing is that he should have
considerably less hypothetical money to spend than the total value of the alternative product
features. In this way the farmer is encouraged to reveal his preferences by allowing researchers
to observe how he trades one additional benefit off against another. For example, would he
prefer a side rake attachment on a 3 metre head rather than have a transporter trolley on either
a standard or 2.5m wide head? The farmer has to be told that any unspent money cannot be
retained by him so he should seek the best value-for-money he can get.
In cases where the researcher believes that mentioning specific prices might introduce some
form of bias into the results, then the index can be used instead. This is constructed by taking
the price of each item over the total of $ 7,460 and multiplying by 100. Survey respondents
might then be given a maximum of 60 points and then, as before, are asked how they would
spend these 60 points. In this crude example the index numbers are not too easy to work with
for most respondents, so one would round them as has been done in the adjusted column. It is
the relative and not the absolute value of the items which is important so the precision of the
rounding need not overly concern us.
Figure 3.6 The unity-sum-gain technique
Item

Additional Cost ($s)

Index

Adjusted Index

2,000

27

30

Self lubricating chain rather than belt

200

47

50

Side rake attachment

350

10

Polymer heads rather than steel

250

Double rather than single edged cutters

210

2.5

Transporter trolley for reaper attachment

650

10

Automatic levelling of table

300

2.5 wide rather than standard 2m

The unity-sum-gain technique is useful for determining which product features are more
important to farmers. The design of the final market version of the product can then reflect the
farmers' needs and preferences. Practitioners treat data gathered by this method as ordinal.

Noncomparative scales
Continuous rating scales: The respondents are asked to give a rating by placing a mark at the
appropriate position on a continuous line. The scale can be written on card and shown to the
respondent during the interview. Two versions of a continuous rating scale are depicted in figure
3.7.

Figure 3.7 Continuous rating scales

When version B is used, the respondent's score is determined either by dividing the line into as
many categories as desired and assigning the respondent a score based on the category into
which his/her mark falls, or by measuring the distance, in millimetres or inches, from either end
of the scale.
Whichever of these forms of the continuous scale is used, the results are normally analysed as
interval scaled.
Line marking scale: The line marked scale is typically used to measure perceived similarity
differences between products, brands or other objects. Technically, such a scale is a form of
what is termed a semantic differential scale since each end of the scale is labelled with a
word/phrase (or semantic) that is opposite in meaning to the other. Figure 3.8 provides an
illustrative example of such a scale.
Consider the products below which can be used when frying food. In the case of each pair,
indicate how similar or different they are in the flavour which they impart to the food.
Figure 3.8 An example of a line marking scale
For some types of respondent, the line scale is an easier format because they do not find
discrete numbers (e.g. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) best reflect their attitudes/feelings. The line marking scale is
a continuous scale.
Itemised rating scales: With an itemised scale, respondents are provided with a scale having
numbers and/or brief descriptions associated with each category and are asked to select one of
the limited number of categories, ordered in terms of scale position, that best describes the

product, brand, company or product attribute being studied. Examples of the itemised rating
scale are illustrated in figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9 Itemised rating scales

Itemised rating scales can take a variety of innovative forms as demonstrated by the two
illustrated in figure 3.9, which are graphic.
Figure 3.10 Graphic itemised scales
Whichever form of itemised scale is applied, researchers usually treat the data as interval level.
Semantic scales: This type of scale makes extensive use of words rather than numbers.
Respondents describe their feelings about the products or brands on scales with semantic
labels. When bipolar adjectives are used at the end points of the scales, these are termed
semantic differential scales. The semantic scale and the semantic differential scale are
illustrated in figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11 Semantic and semantic differential scales

Likert scales: A Likert scale is what is termed a summated instrument scale. This means that
the items making up a Liken scale are summed to produce a total score. In fact, a Likert scale is
a composite of itemised scales. Typically, each scale item will have 5 categories, with scale
values ranging from -2 to +2 with 0 as neutral response. This explanation may be clearer from
the example in figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12 The Likert scale
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree
Agree

Strongly
Disagree

If the price of raw materials fell firms would reduce

the price of their food products.

Without government regulation the firms would

exploit the consumer.

Most food companies are so concerned about

making profits they do not care about quality.

The food industry spends a great deal of money

making sure that its manufacturing is hygienic.

Food companies should charge the same price for

their

Levels of Measurement
The level of measurement refers to the relationship among the values
that are assigned to the attributes for a variable. What does that mean?
Begin with the idea of the variable, in this example "party affiliation." That
variable has a number of attributes. Let's assume that in this particular
election context the only relevant attributes are "republican", "democrat",
and "independent". For purposes of analyzing the results of this variable,
we arbitrarily assign the values 1, 2 and 3 to the three attributes.
The level of measurement describes the relationship among these
three values. In this case, we simply are using the numbers as shorter
placeholders for the lengthier text terms. We don't assume that higher
values mean "more" of something and lower numbers signify "less". We
don't assume the the value of 2 means that democrats are twice
something that republicans are. We don't assume that republicans are in
first place or have the highest priority just because they have the value
of 1. In this case, we only use the values as a shorter name for the
attribute. Here, we would describe the level of measurement as
"nominal".

Why is
Level of

Measurement Important?
First, knowing the level of measurement helps you decide how to
interpret the data from that variable. When you know that a measure is
nominal (like the one just described), then you know that the numerical
values are just short codes for the longer names. Second, knowing the
level of measurement helps you decide what statistical analysis is
appropriate on the values that were assigned. If a measure is nominal,
then you know that you would never average the data values or do a ttest on the data.
There are typically four levels of measurement that are defined:

Nominal

Ordinal

Interval

Ratio

In nominal measurement the numerical values just "name" the attribute

uniquely. No ordering of the cases is implied. For example, jersey
numbers in basketball are measures at the nominal level. A player with

number 30 is not more of anything than a player with number 15, and is
certainly not twice whatever number 15 is.
In ordinal measurement the attributes can be rank-ordered. Here,
distances between attributes do not have any meaning. For example, on
a survey you might code Educational Attainment as 0=less than H.S.;
1=some H.S.; 2=H.S. degree; 3=some college; 4=college degree; 5=post
college. In this measure, higher numbers mean more education. But is
distance from 0 to 1 same as 3 to 4? Of course not. The interval between
values is not interpretable in an ordinal measure.
In interval measurement the distance between attributes doeshave
meaning. For example, when we measure temperature (in Fahrenheit),
the distance from 30-40 is same as distance from 70-80. The interval
between values is interpretable. Because of this, it makes sense to
compute an average of an interval variable, where it doesn't make sense
to do so for ordinal scales. But note that in interval measurement ratios
don't make any sense 80 degrees is not twice
as hot as 40 degrees
(although the attribute
value is twice as large).
Finally,
in ratio measurement
there is always an
absolute zero that is
meaningful. This means
that you can construct a
meaningful fraction (or ratio) with a ratio variable. Weight is a ratio
variable. In applied social research most "count" variables are ratio, for
example, the number of clients in past six months. Why? Because you
can have zero clients and because it is meaningful to say that "...we had

twice as many clients in the past six months as we did in the previous six
months."
It's important to recognize that there is a hierarchy implied in the level of
measurement idea. At lower levels of measurement, assumptions tend to
be less restrictive and data analyses tend to be less sensitive. At each
level up the hierarchy, the current level includes all of the qualities of the
one below it and adds something new. In general, it is desirable to have
a higher level of measurement (e.g., interval or ratio) rather than a lower
one (nominal or ordinal).

44444444444444444444

Ranking Questions vs. Rating Questions

Sometimes I hear clients use the words ranking and rating interchangeably, even though there is a distinction.
The difference is simple: a rating question asks you to compare different items using a common scale (e.g.,
"Please rate each of the following items on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is very
important") while a ranking question asks you to compare different items directly to one another (e.g., "Please
rank each of the following items in order of importance, from the #1 most important item through the #10 least
important item"). Both types of questions have their strengths and weaknesses.

Ranking Questions

Pros

Guarantee that each item ranked has a unique value

Cons

Force respondents to differentiate between items that they may regard as equivalent

Emphasize items earlier in the list, which are more likely to be ranked highest

Return different results depending on the completeness of the list of items being ranked

Limit the range of statistical analysis available: they should not be analyzed as averages, as
ranking questions do not measure the distance between two subsequent choices (which might be
nearer or farther from each other than from other choices)

Can confuse respondents if numeric rating scales with 1 being the lowest rating are being
used elsewhere in the questionnaire (though you should fully labeled scales instead on rating
questions)

Take on average three times longer to answer than rating questions (Munson and McIntyre,
1979)

Mentally tax respondents, requiring them to compare multiple items against one another

Increase the difficulty of answering disproportionately as choices are added

Rating Questions

Pros

Commonly used and easily understood by respondents

Allow respondents to assign items the same

Cons

Often have a narrow distribution of ratings, which typically fall into an upper band (for
instance, most items are considered important when using important scales)

Lead to less differentiation among items, with the possibility that a respondent rates every
item identically

Accept great personal variations in response styles (e.g., respondents who never assign the
highest rating)

Produce possibly spurious positive correlations due to individuals' personal variations

Matrix questions are tedious and lead to satisficing

What is the difference between a survey ranking question and a rating question?

Often times, people use the terms ranking question and rating questioninterchangeably,
when in fact, there is a distinct difference between the two question types.

Rating Question
A rating question asks survey respondents to compare different items using a common
scale (e.g. Please rate each of the following objects on a rating scale of 1-10, where 1
is not at all important and 10 is very important.). The example below uses a rating
scale of 0 to 5 to rate the aspects of service in a restaurant.

Ranking Question
A ranking question on the other hand asks survey respondents to compare a list of
different objects to one another (e.g. Please rank each of the following items in order of
importance with #1 being the most important object to #10 being the least important
object.). The example below uses a ranking scale of #1 to #4 where 1 is the most
important and 4 is the least important.

Attitude is a behavioural disposition which is part of thestructure of human

perceptions
It is an enduring organisation of motivational, emotional,perceptual and cognitive
processes with respect to someaspects of the individuals world.s
It is an enduring system of ones belief, feeling and actiontendencies.Fig

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14712503/Attitude-Measurement-Techniques#scribd